I find that the confluence of several things have put me in a bit of a melancholy state of mind. From the illogical – California deciding to eliminate physical differences by fiat – to the irascible – Stacy McCain’s hilarious battle with radical feminists, it does seem that the world is spinning out of control.

The issue with the “transgendered” folks is a true postmodernist idea. The premise is this – no matter what your physical being is, you are what your mind thinks you are. One must admit that is a very post-modern idea. Post-modernist are very fond of the Hegelian dialectic – in which some assertible proposition (thesis) is necessarily opposed by an equally assertible and apparently contradictory proposition (antithesis), the contradiction being reconciled on a higher level of truth by a third proposition (synthesis). It is the idea that somehow the synthesis is some new, higher level of truth that combines both the thesis and antithesis in to one – but the fact is, the synthesis may well not be a “third way” but an affirmation or negation of the thesis or the antithesis – or both.

I have no doubt that there are people who truly believe that they really are a gender that is trapped in another body but there is no possibility that can be changed, at least not in reality. Human physiology is human physiology, and as such is subject to the laws of Nature (and of Nature’s God). Human knowledge and skill can create an approximation of an altered gender assignment but it cannot truly “change” a sex. The results of gender reassignment surgeries and hormone therapies in male and female bodies only create the illusion of a change. A man who chooses to approximate a woman may have a pseudo-vagina surgically constructed, but they can never bear children, relegating them to being the mere illusion of a female. The same with a female wishing to be male, a penis can be constructed but the body cannot create sperm and therefore can never sire a child. These reproductive roles are as much a part of the definition of gender as any mental or physical attribute.

Should a man with an oversupply of estrogen and a belief that he is really a woman be condemned to a life of pain? Should a woman with an oversupply of testosterone be condemned to a life of isolation and scorn? Should same sex couples be forbidden by law?

Personally for me, I lean way to the libertarian side here – my answer to these three questions is “no”. I think that they should be able to do anything with their existence they want, live however they choose and love whomever they share that emotion with.

Where we part company is when society tries to use my acquiescence to these situations as an attempt to deny reality and natural law and then to attempt to force me to accept the same as a comprehensive societal change rather than an individual deviation from societal norms and natural physiology.

A male may choose to go through life as a female and a female may choose such as a man. They may choose to undergo surgical procedures to affect the appearance of a gender change…but at a DNA level, there is no change. It is simply an impossibility to alter the facts of Nature – that women have a homogametic construction (pairs of the same sex chromosomes – XX) and men are heterogametic (pairs of different sex chromosomes – XY). Homosexuals may choose to alter their appearance and lifestyle in an effort to become more accepted in society but it is still an illusion. Two people with the same XX or XY chromosomes are still the same sex, ergo homosexual.

Where did these ideas originate?

The trichotomy between biological sex, psychological gender, and social sex role first appeared in a feminist paper titled “Transexualism and Women: A Critical Perspective” in 1978. The first “sex reassignment” surgeries were to attempt to change males to females, so it is not surprising that the GLBT community identifies with feminism.

Feminism. As Stacy McCain points out in his post “Why Does Lesbian @SaraAlcid Want to Help More Women Kill Their Babies?, feminism is nothing but the expression of cultural Marxism with added breasts:

The inherent radicalism of the women’s movement — its theoretical foundation in Marxism, its implacable antagonism to traditional marriage and other institutions of bourgeois society — is not generally understood outside such campus cauldrons as Bryn Mawr.

Feminism is a totalitarian ideology. It cannot be co-opted or moderated. You cannot negotiate or compromise with feminism, because the ambitions of feminism are without limit. They can accept nothing short of the complete overthrow of “hitherto existing society” (Marx and Engels) resulting in their own dictatorial authority. Halfway “reform” (to which the bourgeoisie may agree in its attempt to stave off this upheaval) can ever placate the revolutionary, because the radical does not seekreform, but rather destruction. And the problem that most conservatives have, in trying to cope with radical movements, is that the typical conservative cannot imagine how fanatical — how rigidly unreasonable, how full of passionate destructive hatefulness — the radical really is.

Abortion is the nuclear weapon of feminism, a veritable WMD (Womb of Mass Destruction). It is the ultimate power over men.

Feminists are essentially saying:

“If I can’t get what I want, be who you are or reject the way Mother Nature made me so I can have everything, I’ll just strike you oppressors where it hurts – I’ll kill the parasitic children of your miserable patriarchy.”

Essentially that is what abortion has turned into. It is not about “women’s reproductive health”. It is nothing more than the legal approval of politically sanctioned mass murder.

Why? Since men cannot bear children, to strip them of the right to choose life for a child is the ultimate revenge.

War on women?

Hardly.

Feminism and GLBT issues are representative of a war on men.